Nitric Oxide-Mediated Modulation of Central Network Dynamics during Olfactory Perception
Fig 5
Electrical stimulation of the STN evokes NO-dependent responses.
(A) Schematic of the experiment. A single electrical pulse was applied to the STN from a suction electrode. (B) STN stimulation (arrow) transiently increased the frequency of LFP oscillation (top). L-NAME blocked the frequency increase (bottom). (C) Modulation of the phase lag between the apical and basal recording sites. In normal saline, the lag decreased after STN stimulation (top). In saline containing L-NAME, STN stimulation did not change the lag (bottom). (D) The amplitude of the evoked LFP immediately following the stimulation in normal saline (top) did not change after incubation with L-NAME (bottom), suggesting that fast synaptic transmission to the PC lobe is intact in the presence of L-NAME. (E) The evoked EPSP was recorded in NB neurons in normal saline (top) and L-NAME (bottom). The amplitudes of the evoked EPSP were similar under these two conditions. (F) Summary of the changes in the frequency of LFP oscillation. Average and individual data points are shown in this and subsequent graphs. The LFP oscillation increased in response to STN stimulation, and this was blocked by L-NAME (*P<0.05; N = 10). (G) Summary of the changes in the phase lag between the apical and basal recording sites. The data connected by the lines are from the same samples. The phase lag decreased following STN stimulation, and this was blocked by L-NAME (**P<0.01; N = 8). (H) Summary of the amplitude of the evoked LFP. The amplitude did not significantly change after incubation with L-NAME (NS, not significant; N = 7). (I) Summary of the amplitude of the evoked EPSP in NB neurons. The amplitude did not significantly differ between saline and L-NAME groups (N = 5 for control and N = 7 for L-NAME).